2018 (5) TMI 115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Nagori, Authorised Representative For Respondent (s): Shri Jigar Shah, Advocate Per: Dr. D. M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original No. STC/02/Commr/AHD/2008 dated 10.03.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in providing T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... also imposed penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Rule 15(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, both Revenue as well as the assessee filed appeals before this forum. 4. Learned AR Shri J. Nagori for the Revenue submits that in the impugned order learned Commissioner though observed that towers and tower materials are eligible to credit as capital goods, however, he failed to con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the respondent submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee has been remanded by this Tribunal. Regarding the plea taken by the Revenue, in the present appeal, the learned Advocate submitted that since there is no allegation in the show-cause notice that the interest is recoverable, therefore, such plea at this stage should not be entertained. On the issue of penalty, he submits that the pena....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncial year. We find force in the contention of the learned AR for the Revenue that the demand notice was issued considering the credit availed on capital goods, therefore, the ground taken by the Revenue is not beyond the purview of show-cause notice. Thus, analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the respondents are liable to pay interest for taking the credit of....